Managing IP is part of the Delinian Group, Delinian Limited, 8 Bouverie Street, London, EC4Y 8AX, Registered in England & Wales, Company number 00954730
Copyright © Delinian Limited and its affiliated companies 2023

Accessibility | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Modern Slavery Statement

Trade secrets get sexy

It seems like legislators around the world have woken up to the need to protect trade secrets. But are more laws really the way to prevent misappropriation?

A summer of secrets


This summer, in Beijing, Brussels and Washington DC, politicians are discussing trade secrets.

As our Asia editor Peter Leung reported on Friday, a first draft of a revision to China’s trade secret law will be submitted later this month. The country has been looking to enhance protection for trade secrets, and last year a Shanghai court issued the first preliminary injunction against a defendant in a trade secrets case.

Meanwhile, in the United States, both houses of Congress (right) have introduced federal trade secrets bills that would update the Economic Espionage Act to provide stronger protection beyond state boundaries.

Finally, in Europe, the Commission published a draft directive on trade secrets in November last year, and the Council of the EU stated its position on the topic on May 26. The European Parliament is expected to debate the draft in the autumn, with some speakers at a recent conference I attended predicting that a directive will be adopted early next year. Member states will then probably have two years to implement it.

Why is it happening now?


It may just be coincidence that the world’s largest economic areas are all discussing trade secrets reform at the same time. But there are at least three common themes in the efforts.

First, many businesses place increasing value on data that cannot easily be protected by other IP rights. But that data can also easily walk out of the door in a single email, USB download or over an unsecure network (a downside of bring-your-own-device (BYOD) policies). So definitions have to be re-thought. In China, for example, the proposals seek to address how to prove that information was kept secret. In the US, as Aaron Cooper told us, the bills seek to balance the need for quick action with protecting innocent third parties.

Second, how do you prove misappropriation? At our recent China International IP Forum in Beijing (left), speakers discussed the challenges of establishing trade secrets claims in countries such as China and Japan where it can be hard to obtain relevant documents. As more valuable corporate assets exist in the form of information, it is vital to be able to show when they have been taken.

Third is the desire for harmonisation. The EU directive is explicitly designed to harmonise protection in the 28 member states, in the words of the EU Council to create “a single, clear and coherent regime”. In the US, as our Americas editor Michael Loney explains, there is no federal civil remedy to protect trade secrets, though 48 states have adopted the Uniform Trade Secrets Act, and the bills in Congress would remedy that.

Protection across jurisdictions is key for today’s information-rich businesses, where data can be transferred across borders in milliseconds. In fact, for many companies, pan-US or pan-EU harmonisation will not go far enough: the dream would be a treaty that defines trade secrets, sets out minimum levels of protection and provides guidance on remedies worldwide. That, however, will surely remain a dream for a generation at least.

Reform may be controversial


Don’t underestimate the possibility of opposition to these proposals. Post-Wikileaks and Snowden (right), many people have concerns about who controls data (see our article on the TPP). They will want to see safeguards for whistleblowers as much as big business wants to see fences placed around valuable information. There could yet be some big fights as these legislatives proposals are further debated, and it may take a while before any reform is passed.

In some cases, though, that may not matter too much. While there are examples of large-scale corporate espionage, much trade secrets misappropriation takes place at the individual level, at least according to some of the speakers I heard at the conference mentioned above. It may not please lawyers to hear it but education, technical tools, simple employee checks, preventative measures such as reporting hotlines and simple, clear contracts may all be more important in the long term than new legislation in keeping secrets safe.

more from across site and ros bottom lb

More from across our site

Chris Semerjian, MacNeal Darnley and Nicolas Charest provide an overview of trade secret law in Canada and reveal best measures to protect and enforce trade secrets.
Inspired by his former team at Pure Storage, Suvashis Bhattacharya wants to reward inventors with merchandise, he tells Managing IP in an exclusive interview
IP minister George Freeman said on Wednesday that plans for a broad text and data mining exception would not go ahead and that further consultation was needed
We provide a rundown of Managing IP’s news and analysis coverage from the week, and review what’s been happening elsewhere in IP
The trademark battle over ‘MetaBirkin’ NFTs could inform future legal strategies and will provide at least some answers, whichever way it turns, say sources
The EPO BoA says the choice of format now rests with individual boards, sparking outrage from attorneys who say in-person hearings are the ‘gold standard’
Counsel at SMEs and private practice advisers say funding schemes are useful but must be backed by wider changes
Counsel welcome the Delhi High Court’s clarity on claim amendment but worry that its interpretation of the Patents Act negates statutory law
Kitchin is to hear the DABUS case before stepping down on September 29 this year
Numerous studies show that lawyers are increasingly stressed at work and looking for a way out, but law firms are still in denial